The economic crisis has highlighted the need to pay close attention to the disclosure of financial information by public administrations. The present paper seeks to analyse the financial determinants that researchers have often considered in the main exploratory models presented and the main moderating effects that could influence the association between financial variables and financial disclosures of public administrations. To achieve this aim, this paper applies a meta-analysis statistical method, which has allowed us to conclude that moderating factors such as the year of the publication of the study, the communication channel, the administrative culture and the unit of measure could have influenced on the results of prior research regarding the association between financial variables and financial disclosures of public administrations, which creates knowledge about if the financial variables exert the same pressure over public administrations to disclose financial information regardless the context in which these variables are presented.
LourenoR. P., Data disclosure and transparency for accountability: A strategy and case analysis. Information Policy, 18 (2013), 243-260.
2.
SorrentinoM. and De MarcoM., Implementing e-government in hard times: When the past is wildly at variance with the future. Information Policy, 18 (2013), 331-342.
3.
ParkC. O. and JooJ., Control over the Korean Bureaucracy: A review of the NPM civil service reforms under the Roh Moon-Hyun Government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30(2) (2010), 189-210.
4.
DunleavyP., MargettsH., BastowS. and TinklerJ., New Public Management is dead-long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16 (2006), 467-494.
5.
Navarro GaleraA. and Rodríguez BolívarM. P., The improvement of accountability implementing International Financial Reporting. Public Money and Management, 30(6) (2010), 379-384.
6.
MichenerG. and BerschK., Identifying transparency. Information Polity, 18 (2013), 233-242.
7.
Rodríguez BolívarM. P., Alcaide MuñozL. and López HernándezA. M., Trends of e-Government research: contextualization and research opportunities. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 10 (2010), 87-111.
8.
Rodríguez BolívarM. P., Alcaide MuñozL. and López HernándezA. M., Studying e-government: Research methodologies, data compilation techniques and future outlook. Academia. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 51 (2012), 79-95.
9.
GrimmelikhuijsenS., A good man but a bad wizard. About the limits and future of transparency of democratic governments. Information Policy, 17 (2012), 293-302.
10.
BaberW. R. and SenP., The role of generally accepted reporting methods in the public sector: An empirical test. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 3(2) (1984), 91-106.
11.
Evans IIIJ. H. and PattonJ. M., Signaling and Monitoring in Public-Sector Accounting. Journal of Accounting Research, 25Supplement (1987), 130-158.
12.
Caba PérezC., Rodríguez BolívarM. P. and López HernándezA. M., e-Government process and incentives for online public financial information. Online Information Review, 32(3) (2008), 379-400.
13.
GuillamónM. D., BastidaF. and BenitoB., The determinants of Local Government's Financial Transparency. Local Government Studies, 37(4) (2011), 391-406.
14.
RiosA. M., BenitoB. and BastidaF., Determinants of Central Government Budget Disclosure: An International Comparative Analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 15(3) (2013), 235-254.
15.
ChapmanJ. I., State and Local Fiscal Sustainability: The Challenges. Public Administration Review, Special Issue, December (2008), S115-S131.
16.
PadovaniE., RossiF. M. and OrelliR. L., The use of financial indicators to determine financial health of Italian Municipalities. EGPA 2010 Conference - Study Group 5 ``Regional and Local Government'', Toulouse, 8-10 September (2010).
17.
LaméG., LequienM. and PionnierP. A., Interpretation and limits of sustainability tests in public finance. Applied Economics, 46(6) (2014), 616-628.
18.
Rodríguez BolívarM. P., Navarro GaleraA., Alcaide MuñozL. and López SubirésM. D., Risk Factors and Drivers of Financial Sustainability in Local Government: An Empirical Study. Local Government Studies, 42(1) (2016), 29-51.
19.
PomeroyB. and ThorntonD. B., Meta-analysis and the Accounting Literature: The Case of Audit Committee Independence and Financial Reporting Quality. European Accounting Review, 17(4) (2008), 305-330.
20.
LipseyM. W. and WilsonD., Practical meta-analysis Sage, Applied Social Research Methods. 49 (2000), California.
21.
HunterJ. E. and SchmidtF. L., Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. (2nd ed.). (2004) (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
22.
OECD. E-Government for better government. OECD e-Government Studies (2005). Available at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/4205051e.pdf?expires=1450118728&id=id&accname=ocid49024551&checksum= B248F7824CED285F7B96C11DE4C83E16.
23.
World Bank, Information and Communications for Development 2009: Estending Research and Increasing Impact, (2009). Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTIC4D/Resources/IC4D_Convergence_19_34.pdf.
24.
WongK., FearonG. and PhillipG., Understanding e-Government and e-Governance. Stakeholders, partnership and CSR. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 24(9) (2007), 927-943.
25.
ZimmermanJ. L., The municipal accounting maze: An analysis of political incentives. Journal of Accounting Research, 15(Supplement) (1977), 107-144.
26.
HarrisonJ. S. and FreemanR. E., Stakeholders, Social Responsibility, and Performance: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5) (1999), 479-485.
27.
CarpenterV. L. and FerozE. H., Institutional theory and accounting rule choice: An analysis of four US state governments' decision to adopt generally accounting accepted principles. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26 (2001), 565-596.
28.
FerozE. H., CarpenterV. L. and ChengR. H., Toward an empirical institutional theory. Corporate Ownership and Control, 4(4) (2007), 30-46.
29.
BaberW. R., Towards understanding the role of Auditing in the public sector. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5(3) (1983), 213-227.
30.
IngramR. W., Economic Incentives and the Choice of State Government Accounting Practices. Journal of Accounting Research, 22(1) (1984), 126-144.
31.
GirouxG. and DeisD., Investor Interest and Government Accounting Disclosure. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 63(1) (1993), 63-78.
32.
BaberW. R. and SenP. K., The political process and the use of debt financing by state governments. Public Choice, 48 (1986), 201-215.
33.
GoreA. K., The effects of GAAP regulation and bond market interaction on local government disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 23(1) (2004), 23-52.
34.
BaberW. R. and GoreA. K., Consequences of GAAP Disclosure Regulation Evidence from Municipal Debt Issues. Social Science Research Network. (2006) Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ide=942786.
35.
Baptista da CostaJ., CamõesP. J., Margarida JorgeS. and FernándesM. J., Conformity and Diversity of Accounting and Financial Reporting Practices in Portuguese Local Government. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 24(1) (2007), 2-14.
36.
CárcabaA. and GarcíaJ., Factors behind the disclosure of accounting information online on behalf of local governments. Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 137 (2008), 63-84.
37.
Rodríguez BolívarM. P., Navarro GaleraA., Alcaide MuñozL. and López SubirésM. D., Factors influencing Local Government Financial Sutainability: An Empirical Study. Lex Localis - Journal of Local Self-Government, 12(1) (2014), 31-54.
38.
StylesA. K. and TennysonM., The accessibility of financial reporting of U.S. Municipalities on the Internet. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 19(1) (2007), 56-92.
39.
CarpenterV. L., The influence of Political Competition on the Decision to Adopt GAAP. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 10 (1991), 105-134.
40.
CopleyP. A., The Association between Municipal Disclosure Practices and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 10(4) (1991), 245-266.
41.
ChengR. H., An Empirical Analysis of Theories on Factors Influencing State Government Accounting Disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 11 (1992), 1-42.
42.
LaswadF., FisherR. and OyelereP., Determinants of voluntary Internet financial reporting by local government authorities. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(1) (2005), 101-121.
43.
Serrano CincaC., Rueda TomásM. and Portillo TarragonaP., Factors influencing e-disclosure in local public administration. Environment and planning C: Government and Policy, 27(2) (2009), 355-378.
44.
RobbinsW. A. and AustinK. R., Disclosure quality in governmental financial reports: An assessment of the appropriateness of a compound measure. Journal of Accounting Research, 24(5) (1986), 412-421.
45.
IngramR. W. and DeJongD. V., The effect of regulation on Local Government Disclosure Practices. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 6(4) (1987), 245-270.
46.
GirouxG. and McLellandA. J., Governance structures and accounting at large municipalities. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(3) (2003), 203-230.
47.
McLellandA. J. and GirouxG., An empirical analysis of auditor report timing by large municipalities. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 19 (2000), 263-281.
48.
StanleyT. D., Beyond publication bias. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19 (2005), 209-3445.
49.
BelG. and FagedaX., Factors explaining local privatization: A meta-regression analysis. Public Choice, 139 (2009), 105-119.
50.
YeungR., The Effects of fiscal decentralization on the size of government: a meta-analysis. Public Budgeting and Finance, 24(4) (2009), 1-23.
51.
BelG., FagedaX. and WarnerM., A meta-regression analysis of solid waste and water services. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3) (2010), 553-577.
52.
GirouxG., Political interest and government accounting disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 8(3) (1989), 199-217.
53.
JensenM. and MecklingW., Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3 (1976), 305-360.
54.
PrestonL. E. and PostJ. E., Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility, Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (1975).
55.
McCormickR. and TollisonR., Politicians, legislation, and the Economy: An inquiry into the interest-group Theory of Government. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff (1981).
56.
Evans IIIJ. H. and PattonJ. M., An economic analysis of participation in the municipal finance officers' association certificate of conformance program. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5 (1983), 151-175.
57.
PinaV., TorresL. and AcereteB., Are ICTs promoting government accountability? A comparative analysis of e-governance developments in 19 OECD countries. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(5) (2007), 583-602.
58.
Rodríguez BolívarM. P., Caba PérezM. C. and López HernándezA. M., Cultural contexts and governmental digital reporting. International Review of Administrative Science, 72(2) (2006), 269-290.
59.
PinaV., TorresL. and RoyoS., Is e-government promoting convergence towards more accountable local governments?International Public Management Journal, 13(4) (2010), 350-380.
60.
PollitC. and BouckaertG., Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2000).
61.
RodríguezL., GarcíaI. and GallegoI., Determining factors of e-government development: A worldwide national approach. International Public Management Journal, 14(2) (2013), 218-248.
62.
TorresL., Service Carters in Spain: Transparency and Citizen Empowerment or Government Marketing?Public Money and Management, 26(3) (2006), 159-164.
63.
KickertW. J. M., Public Governance in the Netherlands: An alternative to Anglo-American Managerialism. Public Administration, 75(4) (1997), 731-752.
64.
PiotrowksiS. J. and Van RyzinG. G., Citizen attitudes toward transparency in local government. American Review of Public Administration, 37(3) (2007), 306-323.
65.
ThomasJ. C. and StreibG., The new face of government: Citizen-initiated contacts in the era of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1) (2003), 83-102.
66.
ZafraJ. L., LópezA. M. and HernándezA., Developing an alert system for local governments in financial crisis. Public Money and Management, 29 (2009), 175-181.
67.
AndrewsR. and BoyneG., Structural change and public service performance: The impact of the reorganization process in English local government. Public Administration, 90(2) (2012), 297-312.
68.
PapenfulU. and SchaeferC., Improving public accountability by aligning reporting to organizational changes in public services provision - an empirical Internet study of all Austrian, German and Swiss towns and states from an agency-theory perspective. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(3) (2010), 555-576.
69.
BannisterF. and ConnollyR., Forward to the past: Lessons for the future of e-government from the story so far. Information Polity, 17 (2012), 211-226.
70.
EdmistonK. D., State and local e-government. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1) (2003), 20-45.
71.
GandiaJ. L. and ArchidonaM. C., Determinants of web site information by Spanish city councils. Online Information Review, 32(1) (2008), 35-57.
72.
MoonD. F. and NorrisM. J., Advancing e-government at the grassroots; tortoise or hare?Public Administration Review, 65(1) (2005), 64-75.
73.
Plümber,T. and RadaelliC. M.. ``Publish or Perish? Publications and Citations of Italian Political Scientists in International Political Science Journals, 1990-2002''Journal of European Public Policy, 11(6) (2004), 1112-1127.
74.
Hartley,J. and Kostoff,D. N.``How useful are ``key words'' in Scientific Journals?''Journal of Information Science, 29(5) (2003), 433-438.
RosenthalR., Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 6, (1991), Newbury Park: Sage.Gandía, Archidona, 2009.
77.
WolfF. M., Meta-analysis, Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis. Beverly Hills (1986), CA (1986): Sage.Zimmerman, 1973.
78.
CárcabaA. and GarcíaJ., Determinants of online reporting of accounting information by Spanish local government authorities. Local Government Studies, 36(5) (2010), 679-695. Giroux, Shields, 1993.
79.
García MecaE. and Sánchez BallestaJ. P., The Association of Board Independence and Ownership Concentration with Voluntary Disclosure: A Meta-analysis. European Accounting Review, 19(3) (2010), 603-627.
80.
LonghiS., NijkampP. and PootJ., Meta-analyses of labour-market impacts of immigration: Key conclusions and policy implications. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(5) (2010), 819-833.
81.
YangK., Further understanding accountability in public organizations: Actionable knowledge and the structure - agency duality. Administration and Society, 44(3) (2012), 255-284.
82.
La PorteR., Lopez-de-SilanesF. and ShleiferA., What works in securities laws?The Journal of Finance, 61(1) (2006), 1-32.
83.
SchillemansT., Van TwistM. and VanhommerigI., Innovation in accountability. Learning through interactive, dynamic, and citizen-initiated forms of accountability. Public Performance and Management Review, 36(3) (2013), 407-435.
84.
OECD. Engaging Citizens Online for Better Policy-making. OECD Observer, Policy Brief (2003). Available at: http://archive.forumpa.it/archivio/0/700/700/705/ocse.pdf.
